Rachael Thomas

[Canadian Heritage, June 4th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, “how low can they go” is the name of the game when it comes to free speech with the Liberals and their attack, time and time again.

Bill C-10 undeniably threatens the voices of Canadian creators. MPs have contended for them by standing up for their voices and their right to both freely express and be freely heard. What the government is doing now is nothing less than a gag order. Censoring the voices of creators was not enough. Now it is having to stop members of Parliament from debating this atrocious bill at committee.

Why is that?

[Broadcasting Act, June 4th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ensure that speaking time is protected.

I have another point of order, but I will allow you to go to others first.

[Broadcasting Act, June 4th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am looking for some clarification, because it has been a bit of a shemozzle.

We raised some points of order, a member got cut off partway through his point order, the Speaker insisted on then going into the 30 minutes for questions and comments. Now we are back to points of order, which I appreciate. I am curious if the clock was stopped during those 30 minutes, to resume once the points of order have been heard.

[Broadcasting Act, June 4th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order in order to challenge the admissibility of that time allocation motion because it does not satisfy the requirements of Standing Order 78(3) and the usual practices of this House. Please allow me to explain further.

Standing Order 78(3) contemplates a minister proposing a motion “for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings...provided that the time allotted...is not to be less than one sitting day”. Of course, it goes without saying that the House has sitting days with predictable schedules and whatnot, but not at our committees. How should this rule apply to committees then? I would respectfully submit that it is through the allocation of hours and past practices back me up.

A canvassing of records of the House show that in the 50 plus years Standing Order 78(3) has been in our rule book, it has only been invoked three times before when a bill was referred to a committee, other than a committee of the whole. Ironically, all three times were when the Chrétien Liberals were trying to shut down Bloc Québécois resistance. The shoe seems to be on the other foot this morning.

Firstly, on April 25, 1996, the House passed a time allocation motion concerning the human resources committee's study of Bill C-12, the Employment Insurance Act. Referring to page 260 of the Journals shows that “not more than 10 further hours shall be allotted”.

Secondly, on February 24, 2000, the House passed a time allocation motion concerning a legislative committee's study of Bill C-20, known as “the clarity act”. Looking at page 1018 of the Journals shows that “not more than ten further hours shall be allotted”.

Most recently, on September 19, 2000, the House passed a time allocation motion concerning the justice committee's study of Bill C-3, the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Page 1928 of the Journals reveals that “not more than ten further hours shall be allotted”.

In all three cases, the House, when invoking Standing Order 78(3), allocated 10 hours for committee study. Now because this motion has allocated fewer than 10 hours, I would respectfully submit that it is not consistent with the usual practice of the House and must therefore be ruled out of order.

[Broadcasting Act, June 4th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order in order to challenge this ruling, the admissibility of the time allocation that has been moved by the government, because it does—

[The Conservative Party of Canada, June 3rd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have a clear vision for securing Canada's future, but unlike the Liberals, we believe our country's success lies in the Canadian people, not in government. Canadians are the problem-solvers, the solution makers and the wealth-creators. They have and will continue to make Canada great.

Instead of liberating Canadians to succeed without obscene interventions, the government is set on picking winners and losers based on a Liberal value system. Whether through excessive taxation, meddling with Internet algorithms to promote some Canadian creators over others, over-regulating industries it does not like so other industries it does like can succeed, or telling Canadians what they can or cannot say, the government is obsessed with engineering a future of its own making rather than letting Canadians determine their own fortune.

It is dictatorial. It is destructive, and it is all together wrong. A Conservative government will secure Canada's future by unleashing the power of Canadians right across the country. Canada's Conservatives will let the people design their future.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 3rd, 2021]

With regard to consultations by the Department of Canadian Heritage and reports that the government refused to give media outlets copies of consultation reports related to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) why did the government refuse to give media outlets copies of the consultation reports; (b) who made the decision in (a), and how is that in keeping with the Prime Minister's promise of an "open and transparent" government; and (c) what are the details of all consultations the government made with stakeholders or the public related to the proposals in Bill C-10, including the (i) date, (ii) type of consultation (phone, request for written feedback, etc.), (iii) individual or organization consulted, (iv) summary of comments or feedback?

[Canadian Heritage, June 2nd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it gets any easier than this. I mean, I am just asking some simple Canadian cultural questions to a Prime Minister who wants to protect Canadian culture. I thought this was going to be pretty simple, but he is right. It is not considered Canadian content, which is interesting.

This is important because, under Bill C-10, the government will instruct the CRTC to regulate what is Canadian and what is not, what makes the cut and what is out. Under the current stipulation as we have explored, Ultimate Gretzky does not make it and Canadian Bacon does not count.

Again, what is Canadian enough to make the cut under Bill C-10?

[Canadian Heritage, June 2nd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Prime Minister has zero clue as to what is in this bill and the consequences it will have for creators in Canada.

Let us just try another one. Again, we are just having fun here. Canadian Bacon is a movie featuring all things Canada and stars our very own John Candy, a famous actor from Canada.

I am just curious. Does the Prime Minister think that Canadian Bacon makes the cut?

[Canadian Heritage, June 2nd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-10, the government would promote and demote content based on its level of Canadianness.

Last week, I asked the Prime Minister if he thought the film Ultimate Gretzky fit within this category of Canadian. He seemed to think so, and of course most Canadians would also think so. After all, it is a film about a famous Canadian, and it is largely filmed in Canada. However, surprisingly, it is not. It is not Canadian. It does not make the cut, which is odd.

Under Bill C-10, what exactly will make the cut, Mr. Prime Minister?